Full text of "The geology of the Carmel Bay, California."

See other formats

THE GEOLOGY

CARMEL BAY, CALIFORNIA

John Page Simpson

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

Monterey, California

THESIS

THE GEOLOGY
OP
CARMEL BAY, CALIFORNIA

John Page Simpson, III

Thesis

Advisor: R. S.

Andrews

March 1972

Approved faon pubtlc fioXoxibZ.; dii>VuhuJj.on antanut2.d.

The Geology
of
Carmel Bay, California

John Page Simpson, III
Lieutenant, United States Navy
B.A., Colgate University, 1963

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OP SCIENCE IN OCEANOGRAPHY

from the
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
March 1972

ABSTRACT

Data obtained from rock and sediment samples collected
in Carmel Bay were coordinated with seismic and bathymetric
information to produce the first geologic map of the area
showing the terrestrial geology extended into the bay itself.
The map shows a large underwater area of possible contact
metamorphism which serves as the source rock for the heavy
minerals found along the local beaches.

A previously undescribed granodiorite boulder conglomerate
was found resting uncomf ormably on the Paleocene Carmelo Series
along the shores of Stillwater Cove. The conglomerate is
unlike anything else' seen in the area, but it is thought to
be associated with the Temblor Formation of Miocene age.

Seismic data assisted in locating sediment pockets within
the bay. The sediment pockets, when associated with the
geologic map of the bay itself, help to give a greater under-
standing of the geomorphology and sedimentary processes occuring
within the bay.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 9

A. OBJECTIVE 9

B. DESCRIPTION OP AREA 9-

II. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS II

A. LITERATURE REVIEW 11

B. GEOLOGIC EVOLUTION II4

III. COLLECTION OP DATA 17

A. BATHmETRIC AND SEISMIC SURVEY 17

B. FIELD WORK 18

C. DIVING EXPEDITIONS 19

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA 21

A. HEAVY MINERAL ANALYSIS 21

B. PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ' 21

C. FIELD WORK ANALYSIS 22

D. ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC DATA 23

V. STATIGRAPHY AND PETROLOGY OF THE AREA 2l+

A. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 2\\

B. SANTA LUCIA GRANODIORITE Z\\

C. THE CARMELO SERIES 27

D. THE TEMBLOR FORMATION 30

E. MIOCENE EXTRUS IVES 33

F. THE MONTEREY SHALE- 37

G. AROMAS RED SANDS 38

H. TERRACES AND RECENT SEDIMENTS 39

VI. DISCUSSION ■ i|l

VII. SUMMARY kk

VIII. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES 1+6

REFERENCES CITED 69

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 71

FORM DD 1I4.73 73

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PaSe

I. Comparative at rati graphic columns from Lawson
(1893), Beal (1915), and Bowen (unpublished) -- 1+7

II. Heavy Mineral Analysis of Carmel Bay and Carmel
River Sediment samples I48

III. Sample Numbers and Field Descriptions I4.9

IV. List of Fossils from the Type Locality of the
Monterey Series ^1

V. Chemical Analysis of Area Rocks 52

VI. Type, Description and Relative Abundance of
Carmelo Pebbles 53

VII. List of Species of Fauna from the Carmelo Series
at Point Lobos and Pebble Beach, Monterey,
California 5^4

LIST OP FIGURES

Figure -Page

1. Location Map of Carmel Bay 55

2. Survey Lines Steamed and Survey Lines Not Completed 5&

3. Locations of Outcrops Studied 57

I4.. Carmel Bay Sediment Sample Locations 5^

5. Carmel River Watershed and Sediment Sample Locations-- 59

6. Geologic Map of Carmel Bay Area 60

7. Bay Sediment Pocket Locations 6l

8. Fathometer Record of Carmel Bay Showing Submerged
Terraces 62

9. Trace of 3*5 kB_z Record Showing High Reflectivity and
Smoothness of Sediment Portion 63

LIST OP PLATES

Plate Page

1. Aerial Photograph of Carmel Bay 6i|

2. Iddingsite Crystal 6I4.

3. Iddingsite and Augite Crystals 65

I4. Previously Undescribed Boulder Conglomerate 65

5. Contact Between Carmelo and Boulder Conglomerate - 66

6. Microphotograph of Pebble Beach Pay Streak 66

7. Pay Streak of Heavy Minerals 67

8. Garnet Crystal 67

9. Carmelo Outcrop Showing Typical Carmelo Features - 68

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. Robert
S. Andrews of the Department of Oceanography, Naval Postgrad-
uate School, Monterey, California, for his assistance and
professional advice. Further assistance in the collection of
data is gratefully acknowledged from Lt . Ralph A. Zardeskas,
USN, Lt. L.S. Carter, USN, Lt . B.P. Howell, USN, Mr. Lawrence
Leopold, and the crew of the R/V ACANIA. Mr. Frederick A.
Meyer of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Mr. Earl Smith of the Monterey County Park Department, Mr. T.
J. Hudson, and Mr. S. Fish provided land access for the study.
Mr. Carl Hooper of George C. Bestor & Associates, Inc., provided
a copy of Dr. Oliver Bowen ' s unpublished geologic charts of
the area.

Partial funding for this study was provided to Dr. Andrews
by the Naval Postgraduate School Research Foundation under an
Office of Naval Research Grant. Funds for the leasing of the
seismic research vessel were provided by the Naval Postgraduate
School Department of Oceanography. Funds for the operation
of the R/V ACANIA are provided through the Oceanographer of
the Navy.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to create a complete
geologic reference of Carmel Bay and the adjacent area to
aid in describing recent sedimentation and geomorphology.
The information included within the study is a correlation
of descriptions by previous investigators with data collected
as a result of numerous field trips within the locality. Since
previous work excluded descriptions of the outcrops under the
bay, this area was given special consideration. The ultimate
result of the investigation is a geologic map showing outcrops
and structural implications in and around Carmel Bay.

B. DESCRIPTION OP AREA

Carmel Bay is located approximately five miles south of
Monterey Bay, California, at the northwestern extremity of
the Santa Lucia Mountains (Fig. 1) . The principal community
of the locality is Carmel, which borders the bay on its north-
eastern flank.

The bay itself is small, with an area of approximately
five square miles, and is bounded by two granodiorite head-
lands, Pescadero Point to the north and Carmel Point to the
south. The length and width of the bay are 3*5 n • miles and
1.5 n. miles, respectively.

Two rivers provide primary drainage into the bay. The
largest, Carmel River (entering the bay just south of Carmel),
is at or near base level at its mouth and, though it possesses

a flood plane about 0.6 miles wide, water flow la present
only a small fraction of the year. The second tributary,
San Jose Creek, drains the mountains to the southeast and
enters the bay about 1 mile south of the Carmel River.

The most dominating topographic features of the region
are south of San Jose Creek. Here, the massive, deeply
ravined granodiorite hills that characterize the northwestern
limit of the Santa Lucia Mountains protrude 2000 to 3000 feet
above the surrounding countryside. To the north of the creek
the relief is more gentle and it is more often distinguished
by mild undulations and ancient terraces.

The beaches, though sporadically broken by both igneous
and sedimentary rock outcrops, appear well supplied with a
predominantly quartz sand.

Carmel Submarine Canyon originates approximately one quar-
ter of a mile seaward of the mouth of San Jose Creek and empt-
ies into the larger Monterey Submarine Canyon some distance
from shore.

II. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

A. LITERATURE REVIEW

One of the first geologists to study the region was J. B.
Trask (185I+, 1855 ) "who, while working on the structure of the
Coast Mountains, described the primitive rocks of what are
now considered the Santa Lucia Mountains as a "granite series."
He also considered the beds of the Monterey shale as being of
the "infusorial period." The original description of the
commonly occuring porphyritic granodiorite was made by Blake
(1855)* Additionally he portrayed the Monterey shale as
being of a diatomaceous character. Whitney (1865) recognized
the granodiorite as. an intrusive, but felt that it intruded
into the overlying Miocene beds. Lawson (1893) noted the
error in Whitney's deduction and set about to clearly delin-
eate the existing relationships among the rocks surrounding
Carmel Bay. He identified the various lava flows common in
the vicinity, describing them as, "submarine extravasations
intercalated with Pliocene (?) formations." He recognized
that a distinguishing feature of a vast proportion of the
lava present was the mineral iddingsite and, using this infor-
mation along with a chemical analysis of the lava itself,
speculated that all of the flows present probably originated
from one local magma. He specified only one volcanic plug,
however, in the vicinity of what is now called Arrowhead Point
He suspected that the abundant Monterey shale was actually-
a modified volcanic ash rather than an organic deposit as

previously thought. He complemented his field work with an
exhaustive petrographic study of the rocks and minerals pre-
dominating in the strata of the area. Beal (1915) gave the
first good description of the Monterey sandstone, correlating
it with the Temblor Formation and distinguishing it from the
Vaqueros sandstone found elsewhere in central California.
The Monterey shale, considered to be the source of practically
all of the oil in California, was felt to be chiefly organic
in origin. Hawley (1917) noted the presence of a basement
complex of gneisses, schists, granites, and crystalline lime-
stones to the south of Carmel Bay. P. D. Trask (1926), work-
ing to the south, surmised that the result of the injection
of the Santa Lucia granite into the overlying strata was still
apparent. The effect appears as stages of metamorphism of
the Sur Series (primarily sedimentary) . The porphyritic var-
iety of granite (granodiorite ) appears only in the Carmel-
Monterey area and grades into a quartz diorite to the south.
Trask assigned the name Santa Lucia to the entire plutonic
mass. He proposed a western source for most of the sediments
of the area. Taliaferro (I9I4I4) regarded the Sur Series as
either very early Paleozoic or Pre-Cambrian in age. He pro-
posed a paleogeographic map for the close of the Cretaceous
which showed a large land mass" (Pacificia) to the west of the
present coast of California and a large island (Gabilan)
jutting southeast from Monterey Bay. Bowen (1965) indicated
that the Santa Lucia intrusion occured in early Cretaceous.
He showed evidence of a Temblor formation (he referred to this
outcrop as Chamisal Formation) outcropping above the Carmelite

Mission. Nili-Esf ahani (1965) concentrated his studies on
the Paleocene strata of the Point Lobos area. He gave an
excellent description of the Carmelo Series and indicated
that the source, for at least the Carmelo sediments, was
somewhere to the south of Carmel Bay.

Griffin (1969) conducted an investigation of the heavy
mineral content of the beach sands along the shores of Carmel
Bay. Carter (1971), in his sediment analysis of the bay,
determined it to be a "sedimentary system primarily isolated
from adjacent coastal sediment sources, with the major sources
of sedimentary deposits being terrigeneous debris from the
Carmel River, erosion and weathering of the local coastline
and offshore rocks by waves and weather, and the shells and
tests of numerous calcareous marine organisms."

The environment and origin of submarine canyons has been
studied extensively by Shepard and Emery (1914-1), Shepard and
Dill (1966), Martin ( I96I4.) , and Martin and Emery (1967).
Their findings apply at least in part to the Carmel Submarine
Canyon .

Bascom (196I4.) conducted his study of waves and beaches
along the beach in the vicinity of the mouth of the Carmel
River. Cooper (1967) discussed the dune sands occuring along
Carmel Beach.

B. GEOLOGIC EVOLUTION •

The presence of altered sandstones and limestones attest
to an environment of warm and shallow waters during the depo-
sition of the Sur Series sometime prior to the Cretaceous
Period. Occasional interbedded lava flows are proof of the
volcanic activity that was taking place during this time.
Over 5000 ft of sediment was deposited in a slowly sinking
basin encompassing at least the central region of California.
Additional sediments may have been deposited after the close
of this period, but no evidence of such deposition presently
exists. During the Cretaceous period the great Santa Lucia
Pluton intruded the sediments, probably assisting in the ini-
tial raising of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range. Curtis,
Evernden, and Lipson (1958) dated a sample of Santa Lucia
Granodiorite from Carmel Bay using the potassium-argon method
giving an age of 8l.6 million years. The Sur Series rocks
were consequently altered to the metamorphic by-products now
seen outcropping to the south, in the Sur Quadrangle (Trask,
I926). Injection gneisses are also quite common. During the
late Cretaceous the mountain range was eroded deeply and much
of it sank below the sea. The rocks of the Sur Series were
completely removed from the granodiorite in the vicinity of
Carmel Bay. An additional period of sinking and subsequent
uplift gave rise to the Pranciscian Formation which is seen
to the north and south of Carmel Bay, but not in the immediate
area. The rocks of the Carmelo Formation were deposited in
an environment similar to that existing around the submarine
canyons of today. Slumping and turbidity currents were the

primary modes of deposition (Nili-Esf ahani, 1965). The source
for the Carmelo is unknown, but it may be speculated that the
sediments come from the Sur, Pranciscian and granitic rocks
existing in the Santa Lucia range to the south. In early
Miocene time the land was again uplifted and active erosion
of the granitic pluton provided the sediments for the Temblor
Formation which was deposited near shore in both continental
and marine type environments. This period of uplift and sed-
imentation was accompanied by volcanic activity resulting in
the lava flows located around the bay. A gradual subsidence
during Middle Miocene time gave rise to a vast shallow embay-
ment. Volcanic ashes combined with siliceous plant and animal
remains to form the great thicknesses of Monterey shale now
found throughout central California. The region was again
uplifted, exposing the sediments to the destructive processes
of the elements and forming the basic coastline whose remnants
are present today. Further modification of the area occured
as it was split by faults and enroached upon by advancing,
then receding seas during the Pleistocene Period. A changing
water level combined with occasional subsidence produced the
terraces found in local hills and up the Carmel River valley.
Sediments from the Monterey Series and other older formations
were stripped from the shore areas and deposited as the Aromas
Red Sands in Carmel, Point Lobos and elsewhere. The coastal
submarine canyons were gouged by eroding currents during per-
iods of heavy glaciation, when much of the earth's water was
tied up in ice . .. '

The present coastline is composed of granite and conglom-
eratic outcrops associated with numerous sandy beaches. The
beach sands are derived from the sediments carried by the two
rivers present and from the wave-eroded outcrops within the
bay.

III. COLLECTION OF DATA

A. BATHYMETRIC AND SEISMIC SURVEY

The survey was conducted during the period 10-12 March
1971 from a chartered oceanographic survey boat, R/V DAWN
STAR, owned and operated by General Oceanographies, Inc., of
Newport Beach, Ca. The purpose of the survey was to obtain
enough bathymetric data to complete a detailed hydrographic
chart of the Bay (Zardeskas, 1971) while gathering seismic
records to be used in interpreting the geology of the bay.

A 12-kHz hull-mounted fathometer and a 3«5~kHz high reso-
lution reflection profiler towed at a depth of 20 ft were
used for the bathymetry. The profiler and a $00-Joule sparker
were used to determine seismic information. The braided sparker
contacts were towed 30 ft astern of the ship at a depth which
varied with ship's speed but averaged 10 ft. The equipment
operated with a l/2-sec sweep rate and a 1-sec firing rate.
A 150/75~Hz Hl/LO filter was utilized. Line spacings for the
survey were dependent on hydrographic rather than seismic
requirements. Over 87 n. miles of sounding lines were surveyed.
Figure 2 shows the area actually covered in the survey.

A HIREX position system, owned and operated by Offshore
Navigation, Inc. (ONI), of New Orleans, La., was used for
station keeping. This range-range system used two land-
positioned transponders and two shipboard recievers. The
transponders were located at C&GS Horizontal Control Point
Loma Alta and an offset control point termed Corona, which

was surveyed in utilizing C&GS Horizontal Control Points Pox
and Loma Alta (Pig. 2) . The offset was required to insure
that the line-of -sight type operation necessary for x-band
transmissions could be maintained. System accuracy of from"
5 to 10 ft was considered more than adequate for the seismic
survey. More complete information on navigation, track main-
tenance, and slope corrections is found in the work done by
Zardeskas (1971) on the bathymetry of Carmel Bay.

Dense beds of kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), shallow water,
and shoaling waves prevented completion of the survey in some
nearshore areas. Dives were subsequently planned to extend
coverage to these areas.

All data was collected simultaneously as the ship tracked.
A modified Gifft GRG precision depth recorder using l8-inch
wide wet paper was used. Records were marked and annotated
at the start and finish of each line and at 3_rriin intervals
coinciding with the navigational system fixes. A cruise log
was kept noting equipment settings and meteorological/navi-
gational conditions.

B. FIELD WORK

Fifteen field trips were taken around Carmel Bay. In the
city of Carmel and the area surrounding the bay each street
was driven to its full usable length in order to locate out-
crops. The shoreline was walked where passable from Pescadero
Point to Point Lobos. When access to the shoreline was imposs-
ible, observations were made from sea. The area south of Carmel
River was covered extensively on foot. Eighty samples were

taken throughout the area. Sample and outcrop locations are
shown in Pig. 5«

Bay sediment samples analyzed for heavy minerals were
collected by Carter (1971) from the R/V ACANIA using a Shipek
grab sampler and a 2.75~iric^L outside diameter, 700-lb total
■weight gravity corer. Sample locations are plotted on Fig.lj.
Samples were gathered in plastic bags and refrigerated until
analysis could be accomplished. For reference purposes sand
samples were taken at five locations up the Carmel River Valley

(Fig. 5).

Sample and outcrop locations were plotted to some accuracy
using reference points from the U.S. Geological Survey maps
of the area. Only rough estimates of dip and strike were made
using a Brunton compass.

One cruise was made on R/V ACANIA for the purpose of sam-
pling near-shore rocks in the Pescadero Point to Carmel Beach
area. A Smith-Maclntyre grab sampler was used with very lim-
ited success. The sampler is unable to break off pieces of
parent rock and is useful only in sampling sediments of pebble
size and smaller. A second cruise on the R/V ACANIA was con-
ducted for the partial purpose of collecting rock samples from
the small islands found in and near Stillwater Cove. Two sam-
ples were taken using the ACANIA 'S Boston Whaler.

C. DIVING- EXPEDITIONS

Three diving expeditions were conducted in the area between
Arrowhead Point and Abalone Point. The first of these expedi-
tions identified as lava the large rock visible several hundred

yards off shore north of- Ocean Avenue. The second dive was
centered in the Abalone Point area, and the third, conducted
from the ACANIA ' S small boat, covered the area in between that
explored on the other two dives. Outcrops were located gen-
erally by observing the growth of kelp. In the 20- to 60-ft
depth range it was found, without fail, that if a kelp bed
existed, so did an outcrop. This was to be expected since the
kelp requires a good sized anchor for its holdfast. The sam-
ples, though broken from large outcrops, were not always
easily identified in the field. They were therefore returned
to the laboratory for analysis.

It is interesting to note that numerous golf balls were
observed on the final diving expedition. The balls were found
concentrated in the. southern portion of the area off of Carmel
Beach. The source for the balls was obviously the Pebble Beach
Golf Course hundreds of yards to the north.

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA

A. HEAVY MINERAL ANALYSIS

The samples collected in the Carmel Valley river bed were
manually sieved and the 3*0 and l\..Q 0 sizes were stored for
the study of heavy mineral content. Bay sediment samples were
sieved and analyzed by Carter (1971) . The 3*0 and U-0 0 sam-
ples were also retained for heavy mineral analysis.

Separation of the heavy from the light minerals was accom-
plished by the standard Bromoform method. Separation funnels
were half filled with Bromoform (specific gravity of 2.85
gm/crrK); 15 to 20 g of the sediment sample were poured into
the Bromoform and mixed. Separation was permitted to take
place, then the heavy minerals were drained off, washed with
acetone, dried and stored. The remaining light minerals re-
ceived the same treatment. The process was repeated until all
samples had been completed.

Sediment slides were prepared by dropping 500 to 1000
grains of the minerals onto a blank slide previously heated
and coated with warm, liquid 'Lakeside 70'. The slides were
removed from the heat, allowed to harden, then studied under
the petrographic microscope by R. S. Andrews (Table II).

B. PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Thin sections of 26 samples were prepared by Cal-Brea,
Brea, California. Two slides were made from each sample to
insure inclusion of all salient features. Sample numbers and

field descriptions including thin-section identification
appear in Table III.

The lava, shale, and granodiorite have previously been
described in detail by Lawson (1893), so only cursory exam-
ination of these rock types was made. The other sedimentary
rocks had not been -well described previously, so considerable
time and effort were spent studying them. The sandstones were
examined for angularity, grain size, matrix type and percen-
tage, and mineral variety. The two primary minerals present
were quartz and feldspar. Percentage of these two minerals
was determined by grain count using optical interference
figures for identification. Other minerals present were
identified in a similar manner.

For visual comparison, pictures of the various rock types
were taken through the microscope utilizing a Bausch and Lomb
Model N Eye-Piece Camera (Plates 2,3,8)

C. FIELD WORK ANALYSIS

All outcrops were plotted on a field map when observed.
The information from the field map was then transferred to a
smooth chart. When the sample from an outcrop was not easily
identifiable a portion of it was sent out for thin sectioning.
Rock samples taken from the bay were dried and broken before
positive identification was made as they were coated with
organisms. Utilizing strike and dip measurements, outcrop
locations and topographic features, a geologic map of the area
was constructed (Fig. 6).

D. ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC DATA

A thorough examination of all gathered seismic records
showed absolutely no sedimentary rock layering visible beneath
that portion of the bay covered by the seismic survey. Recent
sediment pockets (primarily sand) were located by observing
areas of extremely high reflectivity on the 3«5~kHz records.
The sparker records were useful in obtaining approximate thic-
kness of these sediment pockets (Pig. 9). A maximum sediment
thickness of about 22 m was found in the northern part of the
bay (thickness calculated assuming a sound speed in sand of
1.7 km/sec) .

It had been hoped that the JOO-Joule seismic records would
be useful in determining the extent of the rock formations
under the bay. The- deep water records showed no sedimentary
layering, indicating a primarily granitic rock mass under the
bay. The surficial layering that might be expected in some
of the shallow water areas was masked by the high reflectivity
of the sand sediments and the lack of resolution in the first
6 fm of the records due to the pulse and bubble pulses. The
equipment was in good working order as evidenced by perfect
records showing sedimentary layering obtained in Monterey Bay
during the time alloted for the Carmel Bay survey.

V. STRATIGRAPHY AND PETROLOGY OF THE AREA

A. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Each rock type has been observed macroscopically in the
field and microscopically in the lab. The following sections
provide a general description of each of the strata, including
appearance, structure, thickness, and petrography. Occurrence,
conditions of deposition and relative stratigraphic position
are also mentioned. A stratigraphic column based on the re-
search done for this study appears in Pig. 6. Some of the
petrographic descriptions given below are based on work done
by Lawson (1893) •

B. SANTA LUCIA GRANODIORITE

The Santa Lucia Granodiorite is a coarse-grained rock
characterized by large phenocrysts of orthoclase feldspar
(Lawson, 189$) • It outcrops in numerous areas around the bay,
the largest of these occuring at Point Lobos. It surrounds
San Jose Creek and extends to the south and east for some
distance. The tract along the coast from Point Cypress to
Pescadero Point encompasses the next largest outcrop. Smaller
outcrops occur on the north side of Point Lobos and inland to
the north of Stillwater Cove. Granodiorite outcrops guard
both sides of the Carmel River valley at its mouth. At the
intersection of Route 1 and Carmel Valley Road yet another
outcrop appears, and just northwest of this an additional
exposure may be located. Additional outcrops may be found
along the walls of Carmel Submarine Canyon (Shepard and Dill,
1966). 2i+

The groundmass of the rock is extremely coarse and granular
and consists primarily of quartz, whitish to greenish-white
feldspar, and biotite. The quartz is the best developed of
the groundmass minerals, ranging in size to as much as 2 cm."
in diameter. Next in size are the areas of feldspar. The
biotite measures from 1 to 2 mm. The quartz possesses a vit-
reous luster, mosaic structure and undulatory extinction. The
feldspar is primarily oligoclase-andesine -with a small propor-
tion of orthoclase. Striations may be observed on the basal
sections of some of the feldspar. The biotite is black,
lustrous, and contributes significantly to the appearance
of the rock. Muscovite is present, but certainly not common.
Microlites of apatite are frequently observed as are small
interpositions and liquid inclusions in both the feldspar
and the quartz.

The phenocrysts, consisting of large crystals of glassy
orthoclase, are the most obvious features of the granodiorite .
They are usually twinned (Carlsbad Law) and elongated. The
average grain diameter is Lj. to 5 crn« The large crystals are
visible at all outcrops and are commonly observed to show a
degree of parallelism in their orientation in the groundmass.

Closer observation of the phenocrysts shows a certain
amount of luster mottling due 'to inclusions of numerous foreign
minerals into the orthoclase. Plagioclose, orthoclase, quartz,
biotite, muscovite and minute needles of apatite and zircon
may be found, the muscovite and apatite more sparingly. The
inclusions may constitute up to 20% of the phenocryst and,-
with the possible exception of the mica, are found in definite

planes. The size of these "small phenocrysts" varies commonly
from 0.25 to 1 mm in length. Some of the progress of the ori-
ginal crystallization of the magma may be surmised by the re-
lationships among the large and small phenocrysts and the
ground mass of the rock. It appears that at least some min-
eral inclusions were crystallizing in conjunction with the
huge orthoclase phenocrysts. Some time after solidification
minute cracks formed throughout the groundmass. Lawson ( 1893 )
tentatively attributed these cracks to the unequal tensions
caused by differential expansion and contraction in different
crystallographic directions. These minute cracks, which make
the rock quite susceptible to disintegration, have probably
been aggravated by the mechanical stresses associated with
more recent orogenies. Much evidence of this physical wea-
thering can be seen in outcrops up the Carmel Valley. Table
V presents Lawson's chemical analysis.

Two types of dikes may be observed to cut through the
granodiorite . A greyish or slightly flesh-tinted granite
traverses the older rock in all directions. This variety of
dike averages several inches in width, is relatively fine
grained, and is characterized by an absence of mica (causing
the dike to to termed an aplite). The minute cracks charac-
teristic of the granodiorite are not present, therefore the
dikes are less friable and more resistant to decomposition
than the older Santa Lucia rock. There are also numerous
narrow dikes of pegmatite present. These dikes are composed
of a coarse granular aggregate of orthoclase and quartz with
some plates of biotite and a few shreds of muscovite. The

feldspar is commonly flesh-tinted, fresh, and lustrous, but
may be kaolinized and bleached white. The relative ages of
the dikes has not been determined.

The composition of the granodiorite indicates that it was
formed as a deep, slow cooling pluton. Dike formation was
subsequent to cooling, and deep erosion occured sometime there-
after. All younger rocks in the area overlay the granodio-
rite unconf ormably . In some areas distinct jointing can be
observed though no definite orientation pattern is present.
This jointing obviously forms many small canyons where the
rock outcrops along the bottom of the bay.

C„ THE CARMELO SERIES

Rocks of the Carmelo Series outcrop significantly in two
areas around Carmel Bay. On Point Lobos, the granodiorite
headland is commonly overlain unconf ormably with a varying
thickness of the Carmelo Formation. To the north, surrounding
and underlying Stillwater Cove, the second major outcrop occurs
A third, minor occurence of the Carmelo may be observed just
north of the Carmel Mission. Total thickness of the formation
is somewhere between 600 and 1000 ft (Nili-Esf ahani , 1965 ) .

The Carmelo formation is composed of four distinct rock
types; sandstone, siltstone, conglomerate, and shale (Plate 9)«
All of these facies are commonly occuring, but the conglomerate
is the most representative. The conglomerate consists of ig-
neous pebbles imbedded in a coarse-grained, well-cemented
feldspar and quartz matrix. The pebbles, usually 1 to I4. inches
in diameter, are well rounded and porphyritic. A description

and an indication of relative abundance are included in Table
VI (Nili-Esf ahani, 1965). The sandstones may appear as thick
beds, may be included as lenses in the comglomerate , or can
occur as thin layers alternating with the siltstones and shales.
The shale is dark due to an abundance of carbonaceous materials.
The siltstones are usually lighter and are commonly found
alternating with layers of shale (Plate 9) •

Under a microscope the Carmelo sandstone is not easily
identified. The rock is as much as ^0% feldspar, the rest
being quartz with an occasional lense of twisted biotite.
Individual fragments are extremely angular and fresh in appear-
ance. The matrix covers 5 "to 10% of the total area of the
slide and is composed almost entirely of slit and clay. Some
samples show slight effervescence when treated with dilute
HCL. The characteristic reddish color of the sandstone is
due, evidently, to the .presence of iron oxide in the matrix
material.

The Carmelo rests uncomf ormably on the basement granod-
iorite. At Point Lobos it is overlain, also unconf ormably ,
by Quaternary rocks. No other contact of Carmelo with younger
rocks was observed at Point Lobos, but at Pebble Beach its
contact with the Temblor Formation forms an angular unconformity

Quite possibly the Carmelo' rocks were deposited under
conditions similar to those existing now around the submarine
canyon and tributaries of Carmel Bay (Nili-Esf ahani, 1965).
Types of evidence appearing for this type of deposition are:
slump, erosion and turbidity features, crossbedding, and the
presence of displaced fossil fauna associated with turbidity

currents. The sediments -were derived primarily from nearby
granitic rocks, but the source of the pebbles can only be
speculated. Paleocurrent determinations (Nili-Esf ahani , 19&5)
show a southern source for the major part (lower 3/U) °f the-
formation. The source rock for the pebbles was probably Sur
Series and was removed from the area during the deep erosion
that took place after the intrusion of the Santa Lucia pluton.
Portions of the Sur Series still exist in the Santa Lucia
Range south of Carmel Bay.

The Carmelo Formation undoubtedly covered a greater area
at the close of the Paleocene than it does now, but the spotty,
highly disturbed and faulted outcrops which appear now indicate
that the strata were originally deposited in semi-isolated
pockets in the basement granodiorite . Subsequent faulting
and erosion combined with the mechanical pressures of a younger
overburden have resulted in the formation as it presently
exists .

The Carmelo is noteworthy in its sparcity of recognizable
fossils. Table VII (Nili-Esf ahani , 1965) lists the species
found and the associated age indications. Two types of plant
fossils, one of the family Corallinaceae and the other of the
order Cryptonemiales have been identified (Nili-Esf ahani , 19&9)
Additionally, various types of- trace fossils may be found.
The types of fossils present in the Carmelo Formation give
evidence for a turbid environment during its deposition.
(Nili-Esfahani, 1965). Bowen (1965) and Nili-Esf ahani (1965)
agree that the probable age of the Carmelo Formation is Paleo-
cene based on the index fossil Turritella oachecoensis and

- *- - -

other fossils of similar age but of more extended range.

The Carmelo was originally deposited conformably on
granodiorite . Subsequent faulting has, in places, produced
a fault contact between the two formations. The most notice-
able of this type of contact occurs along a line extending /■
roughly from Pescadero Point to Abalone Point (Pig. 6 ) .

D. THE TEMBLOR FORMATION

The Temblor Formation (Chamisal of Bowen, 1965 ) of the
area is composed of coarse-grained, white to brownish sand-
stones and conglomerates. The exposures appear to be flat
lying, with occasional inclinations of up to 10 degrees.
The included boulders and pebbles are primarily granodiorite,
but an occasional pebble similar to those of the Carmelo may
be found. The sand grains are angular and generally poorly
cemented. The boulders are usually slightly rounded. In
some areas the boulders comprise ^0% of the rock; in other
places only an occasional boulder is present.

The formation outcrops only sparsely around Carmel Bay.
Three areas may be located, the largest just northeast of the
Carmelite Mission. Another outcrop appears about a mile east
of Route 1 on the northern extremity of the Fish Ranch. The
third outcrop is sandwiched between the volcanics of Arrow-
head Point and the Carmelo of Pebble Beach at Stillwater
Cove. This final outcrop has generally been considered to
be part of the Carmelo (Nili-Esf ahani , 1965). The greatest
local thickness, found on the northern border of the Fish Ranch,
is approximately 200 ft. Greater thicknesses are found to the
south and east of San Jose Creek.

Several fossil beds have been observed In the Temblor
south of the area considered (Trask, 1926) . Among fossils
found are:

Ostrea titan Conrad

Turitella ocoyana Conrad

Agasoma barkerianum Anderson

Pectin andersoni Arnold

Cardiom vaqueroensis Arnold

Mytilus expansus Arnold
No fossils were found in the three outcrops around the bay.

The angularity and coarseness of the deposits coupled
with the size and subangular shape of the boulders present
indicate a continental source for the majority of the Temblor.
Trask implied that most of the rocks were deposited as fan-
glomerates. Obviously, however, there were occasional sub-
mersions of the area allowing beds of marine fossils to be
interspersed within the sandstones and conglomerates. The
angularity of the sediments, freshness of the feldspars, and
size of boulders indicate a nearby source. The presence of
porphyritic granodiorite boulders and granodiorite-derived
sandstone pinpoints the source as the underlying Santa Lucia
Granodiorite which must have been actively eroding at the time

When observed under the microscope the Temblor sandstone
and the matrix of the Temblor conglomerate are, at first,
difficult to distinguish from the Carmelo sandstones. The
composition is almost exactly the same. There are several
features, however, which serve to help differentiate between'
the two. The Temblor has more rounded particles than does

the Carmelo. Occasional • sand-sized rock fragments are noted
in the Temblor whereas none are found in the Carmelo. The
most obvious difference is the presence in the Carmelo of a
great number of small angular bits of rock imbedded in the
matrix between the larger pieces of feldspar and quartz.

The Temblor rests on both the granodiorite and the Carmelo
and is overlain by lava flows and in places the Monterey shale
These relationships indicate a possible age from Paleocene to
Middle Miocene. Correlation of the fossils pinpoints a Middle
Miocene age (Trask, 1926) .

The outcrop just north of Arrowhead Point deserves special
consideration since it has not been previously described. It
is essentially a boulder conglomerate, the boulders being
composed of Santa Lucia Granodiorite. The matrix consists
of angular grains of quartz and feldspar sand. The formation
shows no bedding so it is impossible to determine its thick-
ness. The outcrop stands as high as 20 ft and extends about
150 yds along the beach. To the north the formation rests
on an eroded surface of the Carmelo Series; to the south it
is in contact with the Miocene extrusives. The nature of this
southern contact is uncertain, but it appears to be a badly
weathered zone of contact metamorphism.

Though it may exist elsewhere as the basal member of the
Monterey Formation, the Monterey Sandstone does not exist
around Carmel as a distinct, separate portion of the Monterey
Formation. What has been called Monterey Sandstone in the
past is actually a non-conglomeritic extension of the Temblor
Formation of the Monterey Group. Microscopic analysis and

fossil comparisons (Beal, 1915* Trask, 1926) lend force to
this statement. The Monterey Sandstone has been considered
separately from the Temblor because of its position above the
lava and because it represents a marine rather than continen-tal
origin. Microscopically the sandstone is extremely similar to
that described under the Temblor Formation. This member out-
crops in the Pebble Beach area and along Route 1 just south
of the Carmel River (Pig. 1) .

E. MIOCENE EXTRUSIVES

Lawson (1893) did an exhaustive study of the lava flows
around Carmel Bay and must be credited with much of the infor-
mation which follows. Lava outcrops are found in five differ-
ent places around the bay (Pig. 6). Each area has produced
a slightly different type of rock, but enough similarities are
noted to give the rock a common name. The most distinguishing
feature of the lava is the almost universal presence of the
mineral iddingsite. Local variations of the rock show massive
structure in one area and vesicular or amygdaloidal appearance
elsewhere. The chemical content and specific gravity vary
as shown in Table V. In some places flow structure or lam-
ination may be present, while in other areas they are not.
Color varies from a dark blueish grey through a yellow rusty
tint to a whitish shade, the color being primarily a function
of the degree and type of weathering. The variation in diff-
erent samples is often even more apparent under a microscope.
Sometimes glass is present and occasionally the rock is holo-
crystalline. The percentage of augite and plagioclase found
as phenocrysts varies considerably from place to place.

The characteristic mineral iddingsite is soft (Mohr
hardness 2.5), has a maximum specific gravity of 2.839g/cm^
and is usually bronze to brownish in color. Chemically,
iddingsite is a hydrous non-aluminous magnesium-iron silicate
molecule. Though frequently associated with the mineral
olivine, iddingsite was shown by Lawson (1893) to be a little-
altered original separation from the magma.

The largest outcrop occurs at Arrowhead Point. There is
variation of the composition of the lava at this one location
alone, but generally speaking, the rock is blue-grey, has an
aphanatic base, and is characterized by numerous small pheno-
crysts of augite and iddingsite (Plate 3)« The ground-mass
appears as a fine network of lath-shaped plagioclase with
numerous minute needles of magnitite and some pyroxene. Glass
is present and in certain portions of the outcrop the surface
is highly vesicular. Breccia may be observed in this area,
along with calcite veins and amygdules. Columnar jointing is
also apparent.

Lawson (1893) described another large outcrop several
hundred yards east of Arrowhead Point. Though it now appears
these two outcrops are connected, there are several composi-
tional differences between the two areas. In the easterly
portion of the outcrop, there Is an absence of phenocrysts of
augite, an abundance of glass, and an abundance of iddingsite
in the groundmass. Macroscopically, however, the rocks at
both locations appear quite similar. On the north side of
Abalone Point yet another version of the lava is found. The
rock is characterized by an absence of all phenocrysts except

iddingsite. Portions of this outcrop are heavily weathered
and portions appear as a volcanic breccia. Much of the lava
in this area is vesicular and the outcrop itself is faulted
down against the granodiorite .

A short distance west of the Carmel Mission there is ano-
ther small exposure. The rock has a whitish color with an
occasional brown stain. Much of the outcrop is characterized
by excessive splitting in parallel planes causing the rock to
be mistaken for the Monterey shale which occurs nearby. Phen-
ocrysts of iddingsite are, however, abundant, and microscopic
examination indicates a volcanic groundmass composed primarily
of plagioclase and iddingsite with occasional grains of mag-
netite and considerable interstitial glass.

In the hills north of San Jose Creek and northeast of the
Carmelite Mission the nearly flat-lying lava appears as a
crescent shape around the head of a canyon cutting eastward
to the mouth of the San Jose Creek. The rock here is gener-
ally greenish grey to purple in color, but it is microscop-
ically similar to the rocks of Arrowhead Point.

The relationship of the lavas from the various locations
points toward a single age of deposition. In the area above
San Jose Creek the lava is seen to rest on the Temblor.
Terrace and recent sediments are piled on the lava at this
location, but an abundance of pieces of Monterey shale indic-
ate the lava is older than the Monterey or was intruded along
the Monterey-Temblor contact. In addition, just east of the
lava outcrop on a different hill, numerous exposures of the -
nearly flat-lying shale are present at significantly higher

elevations than the lava. A comparison of the relative alti-
tudes of the two rock types and the associated dips and strikes
clearly shows that the shale is younger than the lava. The
Temblor and the Monterey Formations have been established as
being Middle Miocene and upper Miocene respectively in age,
so the lava must be Middle Miocene or slightly younger.

During the Miocene the land mass including Carmel Bay was
in frequent vertical motion. Many of the Miocene deposits
are marine and some are continental. This type of environment
led to numerous erosional gullies and delta and submarine type
deposits. This is the variety of landscape onto which the
Miocene lavas flowed. As a consequence, the lava may be ob-
served sitting on granodiorite or more recent formations such
as the Temblor. Arrowhead Point, interpreted as a volcanic
plug by Lawson (l893)> appears to have been the source for
several of the outcrops, but it is difficult to say exactly
what outcrops came from where. The lava at Arrowhead Point
displays typical columnar jointing. The visible lavas were
layed down in a non-marine environment, but it is quite con-
ceivable that some magma flowed into the ocean and has since
been covered and/or eroded away. Thickness is of course highly
variable. Exempting the plug at Arrowhead Point, the thickness
of 60 ft just north of San Jose Creek appears to be fairly
representative .

The classification of the lava poses some problems because
of the highly variable silica content (52-60$). The predom-
inance of iddingsite and andesine plagioclase feldspar in both

the groundmass and the phenocrysts justify calling the lava
iddingsite-andesite (carmeloite ) .

F. THE MONTEREY SHALE

The Monterey shale does not outcrop along the shores of
Carmel Bay, but appears frequently north of Carmel and east
of Route 1. The individual outcrops are easily identified
and far too numerous to mention. The shale is white or yello-
wish in color, chalky in texture and soft enough to scratch
•with a fingernail. It is insoluble in water and thus extremely
resistant to decomposition. The shale is found in flat-lying
to gently undulating beds and is usually traversed by numerous
irregular joints. The beds are occasionally interlayed with
thin layers of chert and chalcedony. The rock has a density
of 2.0l8g/crrK and contains traces of organic material. Close
observation shows the presence of numerous holes, often arra-
nged in planes, throughout the rock. Lawson (1893) speculated
that these holes were the casts of foraminifera which were
quite probably the source of the carbon compounds found to
exist in the rock. The shales are considered to be over 1200
ft thick around Carmel Bay and, because of their abundance
and insolubility, have in the past been used as building material

The porous structure becomes even more obvious when viewed
under a microscope, but with the exception of a few occasional
bits of bitumen, biotite, orthoclase, plagioclase or quartz,
the great proportion of the shale is remarkably homogenous.
It is usually finely granular and cloudy. The chemical comp-
osition is shown in Table V.

The origin of the white Monterey shales has been open to
speculation for more than a hundred years. Lawson (1893) felt
that the presence of the numerous foraminifera casts indicated
marine origin. The high silica content (87%) might point to-
ward volcanic deposition. Bramlette (I9I+6) believed that the
sediments occured as a result of accumulation of silica in
diatom tests and redistribution of the silica during diagenesis,
Taliaferro (19I+I4) felt that the presence of silica was related
in some manner to volcanism. In reality, it is best assumed
that the Monterey shale is a result of several processes acting
simultaneously with the volcanics probably providing most of
sediments to a marine environment. Volcanic eruptions were
common during this period, giving additional credence to a
primarily volcanic origin.

Occasional f ossilif erous beds yield numerous fossils. One
of the best examples occurs near the apex of Los Laureles
Grade, east of Carmel Bay. The fossils found by Martin (1912)
are listed in Table IV.

The age of the Monterey shale has been established as lower-
Upper Miocene by the use of index fossils and stratigraphic
relationships. It is underlain by the Temblor formation and
overlain in the vicinity of Carmel Bay by the Aromas Red Sands.

G. AROMAS RED SANDS

The Aromas Red Sands outcrop in numerous places through-
out the village of Carmel. The most noticeable of these out-
crops occurs along the beach and extends from Abalone Point to
the lava outcrop of Arrowhead Point. The rocks as they exist

in the vicinity of the bay are poorly consolidated, coarse-
grained, quartzose and in places massive; cross-bedding is
noted north of Ocean Avenue along the beach. Color is gener-
ally orange, but may vary from yellow to grey. Massive out-
crops occurring at the southern end of Carmel Beach show
enough bedding to indicate a northwest dip of up to 5 degrees.
Along Ocean Avenue at the eastern edge of Carmel, differen-
tial weathering of the poorly cemented sandstone has produced
a badlands effect. Deposition was probably the result of
wind and wave action in a nearshore or lagoonal environment.
Thickness in the area is less than 200 ft, though a maximum
of 1000 ft is found elsewhere in the county. No fossils have
been discovered, but the age of the rocks has been determined
as Pleistocene by its relationship to other formations.

H. TERRACE AND RECENT SEDIMENTS

It is not the intent of this paper to analyze the location
and content of the unconsolidated Quaternary sediments around
Carmel Bay. Suffice it to say that terrace deposits exist as
high as 600 ft above present sea level (Lawson, l893)» indic-
ating a long period of uplift since Pleistocene time. The
most obvious terrace bordering the bay occurs at the Pebble
Beach Golf Course, where unconsolidated sediments resting on
older rock form the foundation for fairways and greens. Bath-
metric and seismic records have indicated the presence of
submerged terraces at an approximate depth of 35 ^ throughout
Carmel Bay (Pig. 8) .

Most of the area is covered with a thin veneer of recent
sediment. The content of the sediment varies from area to
area, but it contains, almost universally, bits of Monterey
shale and remnants of granodiorite .

Sand is abundant along the coastline and in the river beds.
Composition is variable depending on the source region for the
particular area involved.

A portion of the town of Carmel is built on a sand dune
area (Cooper, 1967). Near the north end of Carmel Beach,
around Ocean Avenue, there is still a small area of active
sand, derived primarily from the Santa Lucia Granodiorite.
Heavy minerals, particularly garnet, biotite, and magnetite
are common in the sands of Carmel Bay, but quartz and feldspar
predominate. The pay streak analysed from the Pebble Beach
area (Fig. I4.) "was almost entirely made up of magnetite and
garnet (Table II). Since this beach is isolated from other
parts of the bay, the source of the garnet is assumed to be
contact metamorphism between the Miocene lava and pre-existing
rocks .

In general, the sediments in Carmel Bay are rich in the
ampliboles hornblende and lamprobolite and in biotite. The
euhedral zircon crystals containing many inclusions, derived
from the granodiorite, are distinctive features of these
sediments. Heavy mineral analyses of beach sands in Carmel
Bay may be found in reports by Griffin (1969) and Judge (1970)'

VI. DISCUSSION

The geology of Carmel Bay was studied extensively by
Lawson in 1893 • New techniques and improved highway coverage
have, however, necessitated a more current study of the area.
Bowen completed a more recent but less thorough investigation
of the area in 1965* The work of these two men and that of
Niii-Esf ahani (1965) are integral parts of this paper.

The enclosed map (Pig. 6) is a result of a combination of
information supplied from past investigations and Information
gathered in researching this paper. Several new interpreta-
tions of the geology of Carmel Bay are proposed below.

The seismic records clearly show a primarily granitic
basement complex in direct contact with the bay water. Sed-
iment pockets were occasionally observed, but no underlying
strata could be detected from the records. Diving expeditions
located a large Carmelo outcrop extending from off Arrowhead
Point to a position about 300 yd seaward of Ocean Avenue.
The majority of the floor of Stillwater Cove appears to be
Carmelo, but the southeastern portion of it shows the Carmelo
cut by the lava flow extending out from Arrowhead Point. The
same lava flow is found east of the aforementioned Carmelo
and extends from Arrowhead Point all the way down to Abalone
Point. The rest of the shallow water rock outcrops are gran-
odiorite except in the area north and east of Whalers Cove in
Point Lobos State Park. Diving information (Lawrence Leopo-ld ,

111

San Jose State College, personal communication) shows the
Carmelo extending a considerable distance northward of the
mouth of the cove.

The rapid disappearance of Carmelo off of Ocean Avenue
gives further evidence of a fault (Bowen, 1965 ) running from
Pescadero Point through Abalone Point.

The Quaternary rocks outcropping throughout the city of
Carmel and along the beach from Arrowhead Point to Abalone
Point are tentatively identified as Aromas Red Sandstone.
These rocks have been identified as Carmelo or Paso Robles,
but they most accurately fit the description of the Aromas
appearing in a report by the California State Department of
Water Resources (1969).

Two other rock outcrops may have been incorrectly iden-
tified in prior work. The sandstone conglomerate beneath
the lava on the hill just north of San Jose Creek shows a
great similarity to the Temblor in texture, content, and stra-
tigraphic relationship to the lava. It has therefore been
categorized as Temblor rather than Chamisal.

The outcrop along the shoreline in Stillwater Cove, just
north of Arrowhead Point has also tentatively been classified
as Temblor. This formation appears to have been deposited
directly on the eroded surface- of the Carmelo, which strikes
NE/SW and dips NW at 25 degrees. As mentioned previously, this
rock shows a greater correlation to the Temblor than to the
Carmelo.

Small pay streaks of heavy minerals may be found along -
the beaches adjoining Carmel Bay. Particularly rich deposits

1+2

were found along Carmel Beach several hundred yards north of
Ocean Avenue, on Pebble Beach, and south of the Carmel River
mouth. The source of these minerals is still highly specula-
tive. The contact metamorphism caused by the local lava flows
found under the bay should certainly be considered as the most
probable source, but no direct evidence of this metamorphism
was found. Garnet schists (Dr. W. C. Thompson, Naval Post-
graduate School, personal communication) and garnet hornfels
have been found at the mouth and in the riverbed of the Carmel
Valley river. A cobble of garnet hornfels was also located
high on the hill just north of San Jose Creek. The metamor-
phic rocks of the Sur Series are exposed extensively through-
out the upper watershed of the Carmel River Valley (Fig. 5)«
These altered rocks are high in heavy mineral content and pro-
bably provide a portion of the garnet seen along the Carmel
Bay beaches as evidenced by the heavy mineral analyses of
Carmel River sediments (Table II).

Only one new fault is speculated. The small valley run-
ning east from the Carmelite Mission near Monastery Beach
appears to have been created by erosion of a fault scarp.
Displacement, however, is not great as lava may be observed
on both sides of the valley. The most probable origin of the
Carmel Submarine Canyon starting just off Monastery Beach is
a fault running down the San Jose Creek Valley. Granodiorite
walls line both sides of the valley near the beach but younger
rocks may be observed high on the northeastern flank. It is
reasonable to assume that a fault occured before or during
Pleistocene time and the subsequent erosion of the scarp during
the Pleistocene created the valley itself and the submarine
canyon. ,

VII. SUMMARY

Six rock types outcrop in the vicinity of Carmel Bay. -The
oldest is a basement granodiorite which was intruded into the
Paleozoic Sur Series during the Cretaceous period. The Sur
Series was removed through erosion, and the Paleocene Carmelo
Formation deposited as a turbidite in an environment similar
to that existing in the Carmel Submarine Canyon today. The
area underwent alternating periods of uplift and erosion re-
sulting in the deposits of Temblor sandstones and Monterey
shales of Middle and Upper Miocene time. These Miocene depo-
sits were separated by a lava flow composed of iddingsite
andesite.

The effects of the Pleistocene ice ages are shown in the
numerous elevated and submerged terraces and the deep subma-
rine canyon found in the area. The Aromas Red Sandstones so
obvious around Carmel are another result of Pleistocene en-
roachment. The predominant feature of the area since Creta-
ceous time has been the large granitic pluton upon which all
younger rocks sit. The pluton has provided both a resting
place and a source rock for many of the younger sediments.

A completed geologic map of the area is enclosed as Pig. 6.
The map is a result of combining data from previous studies
with data gathered for this paper. This map should provide
the best available guide to the geology of Carmel Bay.

Two types of sources exist for the beach sands. On iso-
lated beaches the primary source may be the nearby rock out-
crops and recent sediments. In several areas river run-off
provides most of the sand for the beaches.

Zones of contact metamorphism in the bay itself and Sur
Series metamorphics in the upper drainage basin of the Carmel
River are the only identifiable sources for the large amount
of garnet found along the beach.

1*5

VIII. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

The following studies are presently being conducted within -
the bay:

1. methods of sediment transport between the mouth of
the Carmel River and the head of the Carmel Submarine
Canyon (B. F. Howell, NPS , in progress);

2. sediment transport within Whalers Cove (L. Leopold,
San Jose State College, in progress).

Further studies that would be useful in defining the marine
and geologic environment of the bay should include:

1. carbon, carbonate and organic nitrogen analysis of
the sediments;

2. current and water column structure determinations
within the bay;

3. heavy mineral analysis of the Carmel Valley riverbed;
I4.. seismic refraction measurements along the Carmel Valley

flood plain;

5. gravity and magnetic measurements of Carmel Bay;

6. current measurements of the bay.

1*6

TABLE I

COMPARATIVE STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMNS PROM LAWSON ( 1893 ) , BEAL(1915)

AND BOWEN (UNPUBLISHED)

LAWSON

BEAL

FORMATION

Alluvium
Terrace Fms .
Eruptive Rocks
Monterey Series
Carmelo Series
Santa Lucia Granite

Alluvium

Dune and Terrace Sands

Paso Robles and

Santa Margerita Fms .
Lava

Monterey Shale
Monterey Sandstone
Carmelo Series
Granite

AGE

Quaternary

Quaternary/Pliocene

Miocene

Eocene, Tejon?

Pre -Cretaceous

Quaternary
Quaternary

Pliocene

Miocene?

Miocene

Cretaceous

Jurassic

BOWEN

Alluvium
Landslides
River Terraces
Aromas Red Sands
Monterey Shale
Monterey Sandstone
Olivene Basalt
Chamisal Formation
Carmelo Series
Porphyritic Biotite
Granodiorite

Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Upper Miocene
Upper Miocene
Middle Miocene
Middle Miocene
Paleocene

Cretaceous

1+7

PQ En

**-/

M
H

hH-

C\J

LTN

<-\

-=±

co c
CD ?

fO\

rOv

Fh H O

CD p,,£^

> g CO Lf>
H CO

hT\

£ co co .

C t>0

H -p O -H

(D C «H pp
E CD P
Fh E CO C

O
CM

CM
rH

CO «H O O

3 ^ o

CD (J

CO —

ro>

N~\

r-\

LTN

<-\

r-i

LTN

► nn

r-{

_Zf

CO *-*-

CD-J"

D-

O-

S c£)

CO «H

O fe

c—

-=t

-j~

LT\

P C

G O
CD
E 0

O
rH

l>-

-Zt

_Hf

H 3

O O

n co

Fh
Eh

hCN

!>} CO

cO C

Q O

•H

CM
H

hC\

-Zfr

IT\

H -P

CD CO

E o

u o

CO t-^1

vO
rH

-=t

C—

o*— •

v-i-o

-=t

*vO

J-

hT\

r-i

jTBQjac; LvA

LT%

r-\

_zt

qOB8g

9iqq9d

LTN

.. — x

• — -

r-i

rO —

-P

C CD

•H

Fh -P

O tH

W rH

— - O

•H

- —

cd ,a

rH O

•H

O Fh

-p

,a a

•H

-P

■H E

•H

,£ CO

-P

•H

a, J

•H

r-i

•H

t>»

E ,

•H

<q +

C±S

cej

LTN

•H

[x,

r-^

•

ro>

-P

•H

-p

LTN

•H

•

1+8

TABLE III
SAMPLE NUMBERS AND FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

SAMPLE NO.

FIELD DESCRIPTION

Lava

Quaternary Sandstone

Lava

( •

Quaternary Sandstone

o •

Quaternary Sandstone

Lava

10.

Monterey Shale

Rhyolite?

12.

Lava

1?'

Conglomerate (Calcite Cement)

Granitic Material

15-

Lava

16.

Cobble in Conglomerate

17.

Carmelo Pebbles

18.

Pebble from Conglomerate.

19.

Conglomerate Matrix

20.

.Boulder Conglomerate

21.

Carmelo?

2^.

Lava

2l|.

Sandstone (Miocene )

25.

Monterey Shale

26.

Lava

27.

Granite

28.

Sandstone (Miocene)

29.

Carmelo Sandstone

30.

Matrix from Conglomerate

31.

Quaternary Sandstone

32.

Lava

5?*

Aromas Red Sands

3U-

Aromas Red Sands

55'

Aromas Red Sands

j56.

Quaternary Sandstone

L2.

Quaternary Sandstone

^?'

Monterey Shale

uH.

Sandstone below Carmelo

^5-

Carmelo Matrix

1*6.

Lava

U9-

Quaternary Sandstone

50.

Monterey Shale

"''

-* Sample locations on Figure 3-
X Thin Sections Prepared

149

TABLE III (continued)

5I4. . Monterey Shale

55. Lava

56. X Carmelo Pebble in Temblor

57. Lava

58. Chert from Monterey Shale

59. Temblor

60. Temblor

61. Lava

62. X Monterey Shale?
65. X Lava

64. Monterey Shale

65. Lava

60. Recent Sediments

67. Quaternary Sandstone

68. Carmelo Pebble in Quaternary

69. Vein in lava

70. X Temblor

71. X Garnet Hornfels

101. Granite

102. Lava

103. • Carmelo

109. Granite (Out of Place)

110. . Carmelo

111. Carmelo

112. Carmelo
115. Carmelo

114. Carmelo

115. Lava

116. Lava

117. Granite

TABLE IV
LIST OP FOSSILS FROM THE TYPE LOCALITY OF THE MONTEREY SERIES

(FROM MARTIN, 1912)

PELECYPODA

Area obispoano Conrad

Glycymeris, sp.

Leda, of. taphria Dall

Macoma (Tellina) congesta Conrad

Marcia oregonensis Conrad

Modiolus, sp.

Nucula, sp.

Pecten peckhami Gabb .

Venericardis montereyana Arnold

Sharks teeth

GASTEROPODA

Ficus kernianus Cooper
Necerita, sp. indet.
Trochita, sp.

rcN

r-H

«!

^-1

1-3

Ixh

* — '

CD
+3
iH
Ph
O
•H
T5
O
C
CO
Ph

CD
Ph

> n
co o

i-h

60
CO

-P

•H
O

CO T3

P> CO
CO ©

O
Ph
Ph

to
vo

C-

Ph
Eh

LPv
VO

•

C\J

Ph
EH

ro>

O
o

CN rH CO

rH VO

O ON CM

CJ\i-H

-d"

ro»

fOjO

>»

r-i

ON CM

CT\

-P

-3-

CM
I

o
o

r-i

O
CvJ

r-i

O
O

O
NN

NN H

NN lO

r-i

_=t-

r-i

-=$

CM CM
O

LfN

CO
vo

LTN
NN

_H/

CM
UN

O
O

UNO

ON CO

LfN

C—
H

c—

C—

O CM

Ph1

•H

•

to,

-P

rH W

•H

P •

•H

r-i

o ex

Eh co

TABLE VI
TYPE, DESCRIPTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OP CARMELO PEBBLES

(FROM NILI-ESFAHANI, I965)

Pebbles & Cobbles
(rock name)

Andesitlc tuff

Meta-andesitic tuff

Meta-andesitic

andesite

Porphyritic

andesite

Porphyritic

rhyolite

Hard, black, dense, with
aphanitic texture. The
matrix constitutes 90%> of
the rock and is chloritic
in composition. Phenocrysts
of andesine with some quartz.

Dark green, hard, dense, with
aphanitic texture. Matrix
contains chloritic minerials
and quartz (90%). Phenocrysts
are of albite.

Greenish, hard, dense, with
porphyritic texture. Pheno-
crysts consist of plagioclac
and augite which have been
strongly altered to epidote,
calcite, chlorite, spene,
apatite and magnetite.

Light pink, hard, dense and
porphyritic. Phenocrysts
comprise as much as JOfo of
the rock. They consist of
quartz, sodic plagioclase.
They are angular and show
some alterations. Chlorite
and magnetite form the matrix.

Dark gray-brown, porphyritic,
hard, and dense. Up to 20%
phenocrysts which consist of
orthoclase and quartz.
Matrix is very fine mixture
of chloritic minerals and
fine quartz.

k9%

Others: Granodiorite
Alkali

Chert, quartz, and Jasper
Rhyolittic tuff

TABLE VII

LIST OP SPECIES OP FAUNA PROM THE CARMELO SERIES AT POINT LOBOS
AND PEBBLE BEACH, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

(PROM NILI-ESFAHANI, 1965)

Phyla

Gastropod

Pelecypod
Foraminif era

Genus and species

Heteroterma ( ?) trochoidea
Turritella pachecoensis

Lucina cf . miltha

Anamalina sp .

Ammobaculites spp .

Ammodiscus sp .

Bathysiphon eocenicua Cushman

& C. D. Hanna
Bathysiphon spp .
Cribrostomoides cf.C.trinitatensis

Cushman & Waters
Dorthia sp .
Hap lophrogmo ides

cf . H . excavata Cushman & Waters

" cf . H. longifus sus Israelsky
s_p_p_.
Hypermina
Silicosigmoilina calif ornica

Cushman & Church
Spiroplectammina spp .
Spiroplectammina perplexa

Israelsky
Textularia ( ? ) sp .
Trochamina cf .T . trif olia (Egger)
Trochammina sp .

Age

Paleocene
Paleocene

Paleocene

Carb-Recent
Sil-Recent

Eocene

L. Camb-Recent

U. Cret-Recent
L. Camb-Recent

U.K.

U. Pal. or Eocene

Carb-Recent

L. Ord-Recent

U.K.

U.K. Paleocene

Paleocene
Permian -Re cent

Carb-Recent

Figure 1. Location Map of Carmel Bay (from C&GS 51476)

N
A

A
CORONA

Sounding Lines Planned But Not Completed

Sounding Lines Completed

Figure 2. Survey Lines Steamed and Survey
Lines Not Completed

o
o o

o • oo

10 o °
023

£'43'5690 ^0 0 ° O O

"6° °° 4o2 o

]i)° 065 V'66'67'68 5b°° o52

0 OQ53

49ooOo" Q
50°43° °

o
o

40 044,45

0054

°o

26 O

028
27

O70
56oo61

570 0

058,62,64

0 5

^60,63

O
O

Figure 3« Locations of Outcrops Studied (Numbers Refer
to Collected Samples Listed in Table III)

LE BEACH N
STREAK

Depth contours in fm

Nautical Miles

Figure I|. Carmel Bay Sediment Sample Locations
(From Carter, 1971)

0) v-

C
O

J
I
I

N
O
</>

o
o

v_
O

.5?

CD
CO

C 03

O CD

•H rH

-p a,

CO g

O CO

O C/2

;#1

;;>5

-P

3 c

O CD

^ £

••:*

C/2 -H

CO CD

>&J

-p m

Q fn

C !>

CD -H

affi

{

;':S

~D CD

CD £

^ SH

.'• :t

CD CO

"<''

& O

2 <iH

iz; o

c
o

O
<n

C£

c
o

•*-

<L>

—

c
£

a—

-t—
D

Figure 5. Carmel River Watershed and Sediment Sample Locations

Figure 6. Geologic Map of Carmel Bay Area

Depth contours in fm

I
Nautical Miles

Figure 7. Bay Sediment Pocket Locations

Figure 8. Fathometer Record of Carmel
Showing Submerged Terraces

Figure 9« Trace of 3-5 k^2 Record Showing High Reflectivity
and Smoothness of Sediment Portion

Plats 1. Aerial Photograph of Carmel Bay (Taken
from a position south of Point Lobos
looking north)

/ <: -*,*»

Plate 2. Iddingsite Crystal (X110;

61*

Plate 3* Iddingsite and Augite Crystals (X87)

Plate I4. Previously Undescribed Boulder
Conglomerate

Plate 5» Contact Between Carmelo ana Boulder
Conglomerate

Plate 6. Microphotograph of Pebble Beach Pay
Streak (Large Transparent Grains of
Garnet; Euhedral Grains of Zircon;
Opaque Magnetite Grains) (X^IO)

fob

Plate 7« ?ay Streak of Heavy Minerals
(Photographed at Pebble Beach)

Plate 8. Garnet Crystal (Prom Garnet Hornfels
found North of San Jose Creek) (X83)

■ jw.rfry

;'<••,>>*$

\-Wf «*4fc

Plate 9.

Carmelo Outcrop Showing Typical
Carmelo Features (Pebble Conglomerate,
Sandstone, Siltstone)

REFERENCES CITED

Bascom, W. I96I4-. Waves and Beaches. Doubleday & Company,
Garden City, New York. 267 p.

Beal, C. H. 1915. The Geology of the Monterey Quadrangle. \-
M. A. Thesis, Leland Stanford Junior University, Palo
Alto, Calif. 88 p.

Blake, W. P. 18^5 ♦ Preliminary Geological Report of the U. S.
Pacific Railroad Survey, Under the Command of Lieut. R. S.
Williamson, Corps of Topographic Engineers, 1853* Am.
Jour. Sci. and Arts, 2nd ser: 19 ^ U53_U3U •

Bowen, 0. E. 19&5. Point Lobos, a Geologic Guide. Calif.

Div . Mines and Geology Mineral Inf. Service. l8([j.) : 6O-67 .

Brabb, E. E., 0. E. Bowen, and E. W. Hart. 1962. Field Trip 2 :
San Francisco to Monterey Via California Highways 1, 5j 17
and Connecting Routes, p. 381-390. .In 0. E. Bowen(ed)
Geologic Guide to the Gas and Oil Fields of Northern
California. Calif. Div. Mines Geol. Bull. l8l.

Bramlette, M.N. I9U6 . The Monterey Formation of California
and The Origin of its Siliceous Rocks. U. S. Geol.
Survey Prof. Paper 212. 57 P«

California State Department of Water Resources. 19&9* Carmel
River Basin Water Quality Investigation. Central Coastal
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Luis Obisbo, Ca.k6p

Carter, L. S. 1971* Recent Marine Sediments of Carmel Bay,
California. M.S. Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, Calif. 6l p.

Cooper, W. S. 19&7. Coastal Dunes of California. The Geolo-
gical Society of America, Inc., Boulder, Colo. 131p«

Curtis, C. H., J. F. Evernden, and J. Lipson. 1958* Age
Determination of Some Granitic Rocks in California by
The Potassium-Argon Method. Calif. Dept. Natural Resources
Div. Mines Sp. Rpt. 5I+. l6 p.

Griffin, P. A. I969. Heavy Mineral Investigation of Carmel
Bay Beach Sands. M.S. Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, Calif. 50 p.

Hawley, H. J. 1917* Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the

Salinas and Monterey Quadrangles, California. Bull. Geol.
Soc. Amer. 28:225. (Abstract).

Judge, C. W. 1970. Heavy Minerals in Beach and Stream Sediments
as Indicators of Shore Processes between Monterey and Los
Angeles, California. U.S. Army Coastal Engr. Research
Center, Tech. Memo. No. 33, Washington, D. C. \\\\ p.

Lawson, A. C. 1893 • The Geology of Carmelo Bay. Bull. Dept.
Geol., Univ. of Calif., Berkeley 1:1-59.

Martin, B. 1912. Fauna from the Type Locality of the Monterey
Series in California. Bull. Dept. Geol., Univ. of Calif.
Berkeley 7 : 1^3-150.

Martin, B. D. I96I4 . Monterey Submarine Canyon, California:
Genesis and Relationship to Continental Geology. PhD
Dissertation, Univ. of S. Calif., Los Angeles. 2I4.9 P«

Martin, B. D., and K. 0. Emery. I967. Geology of Monterey

Canyon, California. Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists.
51(11) : 228I-23 Ok .

Nili-Esf ahani, A. 1965* Investigation of Paleocene Strata,
Point Lobos, Monterey County, Ca. M.A. Thesis, Univ. of
Calif., Los Angeles. 228 p.

Shepard, R. P., and R. F. Dill. I966 Submarine Canyons and
Other Sea Valleys. Rand McNalley & Co., Chicago. 381 p.

Shepard, R. P., and K. 0. Emery. 19^1* Submarine Topography
off the California Coast: Canyons and Tectonic Inter-
pretation. Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Paper ^1. 171 p.

Taliaferro, N. S. 1933 The Relation of Volcanism to Diato-
maceous and Associated Siliceous Sediments. Calif. Univ.
Dept. Geol. Sci. Bull. 1+6 (7) : IO79-HOO .

Taliaferro, N. S. I9I+I4-- Cretaceous and Paleocene of Santa
Lucia Range, California. Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol.
Geologists. 28 (U) : U5O-I465 .

Trask, J. B. I85I4. Report of the Geology of the Coast

Mountains and Particularly of the Sierra Nevada. Assembly
Journal, Appendix doc. 9> 5^h Session, State Legislature,
Calif. 21, 22, 36

Trask, J. B. 1855. Report of the Geology of the Coast

Mountains. Assembly Journal, Appendix doc. II4, 6th Session
State Legislature, Calif. 28.

Trask, P. D. 1926. Geology of Point Sur Quadrangle, California
Bull. Dept. Geol., Univ. of Calif. 16:119-186.

Whitney, J. D. I865. Geological Survey of California.

Geology, Volume I. Caxton Press, Philadelphia. J4.98 p.

Zardeskas, R. A. 1971* A Bathymetric Chart of Carmel Bay,
California. M.S. Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, Calif. 108 p.

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

1. Defense Documentation Center No. Copies
Cameron Station 2
Alexandria, Virginia 222ll+

2. Library, Code 0212 2
Naval Postgraduate School

Monterey, California 9391+0

3. Professor R.S. Andrews, Code 58Ad 10
Department of Oceanography

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 939l|0

I4... Department of Oceanography, Code 58 3

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 939l|0

5. LCDR C.K. Roberts, USN 1
Department of Oceanography, Code 58 Rb

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 9391+0

6. LT R.A. Zardeskas, USN 1
Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 129

NAS Whidbey Island

Oak Harbor, Washington' 98277

7. LT L.S. Carter, USN 1
COMPAIRADAK Staff

U.S. Naval Station

P. P.O. Seattle, Washington 9879I

8. Mr. Thompson J. Hudson 1
Pt . Lobos

Carmel, California 93921

9. Mr. Frederick A. Meyer k
Environmental Resources Section

Supervisor, Dept. of Parks and Recreation
State of California - Resources Agency
P.O. Box 2390
Sacramento, California 958H

No. Copies

10. Office of Naval Research 1

Code U80D
Arlington, Virginia 22217

Point Lobos State Reserve 1

Carmel, California 93921

Attn: Mr. D. Rich 1

11.

12. Dr. Francis P. Shepard

Scripps Institute of Oceanography
University of California at San Diego
La Jolla, California 92038

13. LT J.P. Simpson, USN
ASW Group III Staff

FPO, San Francisco 9&601

Ik. Mr. Earl Smith

Director, Monterey County Park Dept.

P. 0. Box 367

Salinas, California 93901

15. Professor W. C. Thompson, Code 58th
Department of Oceanography

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 939^0

16. Mr. Lawrence Leopold
Department of Geology
San Jose State College
San Jose, California

17. Oceanographer of the Navy
The Madison Building

732 N. Washington
Alexandria, Virginia 223II4.

18. LT B. F. Howell

Naval Postgraduate School. SMC #102b
Monterey, California 939^0

Iln&laaai fled

Security C 1 a s s ification

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA -R&D

^Security classification ol title, body of abstract and index, rig annotation must be entered when the overall report is classified)

ORIGINATING ACTIVITY (Corporate author)

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 939^0

2a. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

Unclassified

26. GROUP

3 REPORT TITLE

The Geology of Carmel Bay, California

4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type of report and.inclusive dBtes)

Master's Thesis: March, 1972

5. au THORISI (First name, middle initial, last name)

John P. Simpson, III

6 REPOR T D A TE

March 1972

la. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

b. PROJECT NO.

7«. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES

76. NO. OF REFS

91. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

23-

96. OTHER REPORT NO(SI (Any other numbers that may be assigned
this report)

10. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 939^°

13. ABSTRAC T

Data obtained from rock and sediment samples collected in Carmel
Bay were coordinated with seismic and bathymetric information to
produce the first geologic map of the area showing the terrestrial
geology extended into the bay itself. The map shows a large under-
water area of possible contact metamorphism which serves as the
source rock for the heavy minerals found along the local beaches.

A previously undescribed granodiorite boulder conglomerate was
found resting unconf ormably on the Paleocene Carmelo Series along
the shores of Stillwater Cove. The conglomerate is unlike anything
else seen in the area, but it is thought to be associated with the
Temblor Formation of Miocene age.

Seismic data assisted in locating sediment pockets within the
bay. The sediment pockets, when associated with the geologic map
of the bay itself, help to give a greater understanding of the
geomorphology and sedimentary processes occuring within the bay.

nn F0RM

\\J \J i no v e

S/N 010) -807-681 1

,1473

(PAGE 1 )

Uncla ssified

Security Classification

1-31*08

Unclassified

Security Classification

KEY WO R OS

Carmel Bay Geology
Marine Geology

DD,FNr.51473 (back)

S/N 0101-807-682)

Unclassified

Security Classification

a - 3 I 4 o 9

133921

Simpson

The geology of the
Carmel Bay, California.

25 JUL 72

;; t AUG 73
2' 0CT7fi

208 87

2 2 3 3 7

5 Aug' 80

• AW 83

?366!
INTERLIBRARY LOAN

S 2 2 H 2 3

sio r o.9

Thesis

SS12

c.l

133921

Simpson

The geology of the
Carmel Bay, California.

thesS512

The geology of the Carmel Bay, Californi

III

II,

II
111

ill

nil

ill:

ill

3 2768 001 91425 2

DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The geology of the Carmel Bay, California."

See other formats